A public exchange between Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser on Policy Communications to President Bola Tinubu, and former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, unfolded on social media, revealing underlying tensions within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The spark ignited when El-Rufai criticized the APC’s internal dynamics, lamenting the lack of active party structures and accusing the party of operating as a “one-man show.” This criticism came during a national conference focused on strengthening democracy in Nigeria, where El-Rufai boldly declared he no longer recognized the APC as a functioning political entity. This public denouncement prompted a response from Bwala, who questioned whether El-Rufai would maintain his stance if he were part of the Tinubu administration.
El-Rufai’s retort via Twitter was sharp and dismissive. He clarified his disinterest in serving under Tinubu, emphasizing that he had communicated this to Tinubu directly. He characterized Bwala and others in the Tinubu administration as “latter-day converts,” suggesting their defense of the President stemmed from opportunistic motives rather than genuine loyalty. He implied their sudden allegiance to Tinubu reflected a “moral flexibility,” driven by a desire for positions within the government. This pointed jab escalated the exchange, transforming what could have been a simple policy disagreement into a more personal and potentially damaging public feud.
Bwala responded by defending his long-standing support for Tinubu, highlighting his involvement in Tinubu’s presidential campaign. He emphasized his roots within the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) wing of the APC, contrasting it with El-Rufai’s background in the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). Bwala underscored his commitment to Tinubu even when others, presumably including El-Rufai, sought to “retire” Tinubu from politics. This rebuttal sought to establish Bwala’s credentials as a loyalist and undermine El-Rufai’s narrative of opportunistic “converts.” Beyond simply defending his loyalty, Bwala strategically attempted to portray El-Rufai’s criticisms as stemming from a “vengeance mission,” implying a personal agenda rather than genuine concern for the party’s well-being.
Bwala further urged El-Rufai to address his grievances internally rather than resorting to public attacks, emphasizing the APC’s continued strength and organization. He portrayed the APC as the “only organized party with identifiable structures,” implicitly contrasting it with the opposition. His appeal for El-Rufai to “come home” suggests a desire to resolve the conflict and maintain party unity. This conciliatory tone, coupled with the emphasis on the APC’s organizational strength, aimed to downplay El-Rufai’s criticisms and present a picture of a robust and united party.
The narrative takes an interesting turn as Bwala’s previous political affiliations are brought to light. Months after this public spat with El-Rufai, Bwala addressed his appointment as Tinubu’s spokesperson during a television interview. He denied lobbying for the position, claiming his consistent support for Tinubu, even during the primaries, was the likely reason for his appointment. He emphasized his commitment to serving the President and the Nigerian people effectively. This account of his appointment seeks to portray Bwala as a dedicated and principled individual whose service to Tinubu is based on genuine conviction. However, his previous role as a spokesperson for Atiku Abubakar’s presidential campaign introduces a layer of complexity, raising questions about the timing and motivations behind his shift of allegiance to Tinubu.
The exchange between Bwala and El-Rufai provides a glimpse into the internal dynamics of the APC and the complexities of political allegiances. El-Rufai’s criticisms, while directed at the party’s structure and functioning, also reveal underlying tensions and potentially personal grievances. Bwala’s responses, while defending both Tinubu and his own loyalty, also suggest a strategic effort to manage the fallout from El-Rufai’s public statements. The narrative underscores the fluidity of political alliances and the often-blurred lines between principled stances and strategic maneuvering. The subsequent revelation of Bwala’s past role in the opposition campaign adds another layer of intrigue, raising questions about the nature of political loyalty and the motivations behind switching sides. This episode ultimately highlights the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of political relationships within a complex and evolving political landscape.
